18 Pa. Super. 362 | Pa. Super. Ct. | 1901
This is an appeal from an order refusing to open a confessed judgment in an amicable action of 'ejectment entered upon a lease. The defendant admitted the execution of the lease, and in her affidavit upon which the rule was granted, did not intimate that it was not the lease under which she held the premises. But in the presentation of testimony taken under the rule, she shifted her ground and alleged that the lease was superseded by another executed about the same time, and by still another executed in November, 1900. Her testimony in support of this allegation was extremely vague, unsatisfactory and contradictory. It was, moreover, contradicted by the testimony
Order affirmed and appeal dismissed at the costs of the appellant.